Mazza, Enrico. "Chapter Nine: Tertullian and Cyprian." The Celebration of the Eucharist: The Origin of the Rite and the Development of Its Interpretation. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press/Pueblo, 1999, 117-137.
Tertullian (155-ca. 220) leaves us with a typological interpretation of the eucharist. The body and blood of Christ are present, and they serve to nourish the soul (Mazza 1999, 117). He views the bread and cup as the actual body and blood of Christ, not as figures. For this reason, the elements are treated with the respect we would give Jesus in person (Mazza 1999, 118). Tertullian's argument was against Marcion, who held that Jesus' body was only a body in appearance. Tertullian held to a real incarnation of Christ and his actual bodily presence in the eucharist. The reality of the elements is representative of the reality of the body and blood of Jesus (Mazza 1999, 120). Tertullian's use of the word "represent" is not to be taken symbolically, but, in Mazza's understanding, as a sign of literal presence (Mazza 1999, 121). Tertullian likewise took the Lord's Prayer reference to "daily bread" to be a reference to Chrsit as the bread of life, received in the eucharist (Mazza 1999, 123).
Cyprian of Carthage (ca. 200/210-258) knew Tertullian's works and respected him greatly. All that Cyprian wrote about the Eucharist is in Letter 63 (Mazza 1999, 125), written about 253. Not only does Cyprian make it clear that the eucharist is definitively derived from the Last Supper, but he makes it clear that the proper approach to the liturgy is seen in relation to the events of the Last Supper (Mazza 1999, 125).
While Tertullian was accepting of a layman presiding over the eucharist, Cyprian sees the celebrant as fulfilling the priestly role of Christ, so assigns the role to a priest or bishop (Mazza 1999, 126). The priest has the place of Christ in the sacrament. It is of critical importance to Cyprian that the priest should do precisely what Jesus did. A specific controversy of his time was use of a cup of water, rather than wine mixed with water. This was unacceptable to Cyprian as Jesus used wine (Mazza 1999, 127). The eucharistic prayer, patterned on Jesus' prayers in the Supper and on the night of his arrest, is the standard, and is to be prayed in a heartfelt manner (Mazza 1999, 129). Cyprian relates the Last Supper with the passion, Jesus' broken body and spilled blood. It is, then, a sacrifice foreshadowed in the Old Testament and completed in Christ (Mazza 1999, 130). For this reason, Cyprian considers the eucharist also to be a sacrificial meal. It is a re-enactment of the passion of the Lord (Mazza 1999, 131). The cup must contain wine since Jesus used wine. His reference to his blood serves as the reference to his passion. Cyprian insists on this reference being plain (Mazza 1999, 132).
Mazza concludes that Cyprian took the eucharist to include the real body and blood of Christ and to serve as part of the typology of Christ's passion. Mazza distinguishes a typological interpretation from allegory. Typology is focused on realism, rather than symbolism (Mazza 1999, 134).